Pam, To be absolutely clear, I am not aware of any real-world examples of a set of trademark guidelines causing incompatibilities, but with the badgeware licenses... it's hypothetically possible that a malicious actor could try to create such a scenario.
Tom On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 9:49 AM Pamela Chestek <[email protected]> wrote: > Ok, now you got me started ... > > I would not consider trademark guidelines as enforceable against the user > of a trademark. You have no idea whether a user ever saw them and probably > there is no mechanism for obtaining the assent of the person. (OTOH, they > are enforceable against the trademark owner under equitable principles like > estoppel.) > > So if the copyright license says "modify, share!!", you may not be able to > undo that by saying in the trademark guidelines, "oh, we didn't really mean > that thing we said about 'modify, share!!' in the copyright license." > > Will you be able to say "well, we're talking about two different things > here, they can modify and share the *copyright*, but trademark is a whole > different matter and just because they can copy and share the copyright > doesn't mean they get to create confusion!!" Yes, you can argue that. Will > it work? Maybe. Do I think that it's going to work 100% of the time? Nope. > (Reflect for a moment on patent licenses granted implicitly because of the > copyright grant.) But what will work 100% of the time is NOT granting a > "modify, share!!" copyright license to start. > > Pam > > On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 12:44 PM Tom Callaway <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hmmmm. I wonder what the SPDX answer is for "copyright license on a logo >> that really should be trademark guidelines"... >> >> Tom >> >> On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 12:41 PM Miro Hrončok <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On 14. 05. 20 18:37, Tom Callaway wrote: >>> > In this case, this is a logo, which is also a trademark (though, not a >>> > registered one as far as I can see). >>> > >>> > Since the software does not require the logo to be present (or to be >>> more >>> > specific, the software _license_ does not require this), and there are >>> no >>> > restrictions on distribution (only modification), it seems to me that >>> this logo >>> > presents no real risk or burden to our users or downstream. >>> Additionally, it is >>> > noteworthy that the Fedora logos (and other FOSS logos such as the >>> Firefox and >>> > Chromium logo) are part of Fedora with similar restrictions on >>> modifying them. >>> > Ideally, these restrictions would be separated from the copyright >>> licensing (as >>> > they would be more applicable as trademark use guidelines), but the >>> intent is clear. >>> > >>> > Assuming that Richard Fontana agrees, I would be inclined to clarify >>> our stance >>> > on permissible content (as found here: >>> > >>> https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Packaging:What_Can_Be_Packaged) >>> to >>> > call out the following as another example of permissible content: >>> > >>> > * Logos/trademarks are permissible, as long as all of the following >>> conditions >>> > are met: >>> > A. The logo/trademark files are distributed by the owner (or with >>> the clear >>> > and explicit permission of the owner) >>> > B. The logo/trademark files are distributable by third-parties. >>> > C. The logo/trademark files have a direct relationship to software >>> under an >>> > acceptable license that is present in Fedora (or about to be added at >>> the same time) >>> > D. Any existing trademark guidelines/restrictions/rules on the >>> > logos/trademarks do not prevent Fedora (or anyone) from fully >>> exercising the >>> > rights given them in the licensing on the associated software. >>> > Permission to modify is not required for logos/trademarks, but their >>> use must >>> > NOT be contingent upon restrictions that would conflict with the >>> license terms >>> > of the associated software. Two examples: >>> > 1. The associated software may require the removal or replacement of >>> the >>> > logos/trademarks if the software is modified. Removing/replacing the >>> logos does >>> > not prevent Fedora (or anyone) from fully exercising the rights given >>> to them in >>> > the FOSS software license. In this case, the software and the logos >>> would be >>> > permissible, but the logos may have to be removed/replaced if Fedora >>> (or anyone >>> > downstream) makes modifications to the software. Packagers in such a >>> situation >>> > should be especially careful. >>> > 2. The software license cannot require the logos/trademarks to be used >>> in the >>> > software and simultaneously have trademark guidelines that only permit >>> use on >>> > unmodified versions of the software. In this scenario, neither the >>> logos nor the >>> > software would be permissible in Fedora. >>> > If you're not sure if a logo/trademark is acceptable for inclusion, >>> feel free to >>> > bring the specific situation to the attention of Fedora Legal for >>> review. >>> > >>> > **** >>> > Under these criteria, the lua logo would be acceptable (as would the >>> existing >>> > Firefox/Chromium logos). >>> > >>> > Thoughts? >>> >>> This is exactly the rule I assumed we already had but couldn't find. >>> Thanks. >>> >>> BTW If this goes fine, what would I put in License? GPLv2 and Lua Logo? >>> >>> -- >>> Miro Hrončok >>> -- >>> Phone: +420777974800 >>> IRC: mhroncok >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> legal mailing list -- [email protected] >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> Fedora Code of Conduct: >> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ >> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines >> List Archives: >> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] >> >
_______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]
